It is a rather interesting notion, isn't it? The liberal Democratic solution to the so-called 'corruption" caused by campaign donations may be about to be killed -- by Senator Hillary Clinton!

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.

Little noticed amid the announcement rollout was a page on her Web site in which she asked potential contributors to give her campaign checks of up to $4,200. That figure signaled not only that she plans to forgo public funds for primary season but also that, if she becomes the nominee, she will not take public money for the general election.

By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able to spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather than being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.

Others have opted out of public financing for the nomination campaigns, but Clinton is the first since the current structure was created in 1974 to declare she will forgo public financing in the general election as well.

Clinton's decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.

I have to ask -- does Hillary's decision make her the candidate of corruption and special interests? Or does it make her a free speech heroine? Or, more realistically, does it put her somewhere in the middle?

From my standpoint, this is a good thing. The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, established a system which allowed for unlimited speech on political matters -- provided you could afford it. What Clinton is doing is simply departing from the constitutional monstrosity that was established over three decades ago, and returning to the originalist paradigm.

Now if we can only do away with the other part of this abomination -- the contribution limit. After all, if a candidate has the right to spend as much as he or she wants for purposes of engaging in political speech, there is no legitimate argument for preventing a candidate's supporters from donating as much as possible to that cause. After all, Americans associating for purposes of engaging in political speech is not a crime -- it is a right under the US Constitution.

And by the way, I'd like to encourage my readers to help kill this offense agains free and full participation in the electoral system -- DO NOT check the box on your tax return directing your money to public financing of presidential campaigns!

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.